Gary Langford's RV Teaching Method

[Don_Williams]

I'm still speechless.

One of the computer scientists at SRI back in the early days - a guy we never hear much about - Gary Langford,was described as seeming "like a new Pat Price" sometimes by Puthoff and Targ in Schanabel's "Remote Viewers". His description of the at-that-time brand new, enormous Typhoon class submarine matched the famous session done by Joe M. He predicted the kidnapping of General Dozier several days in advance.

This training method of his that Daz has posted (at RemoteViewed.com) contains the best writing on the internal process and experience of remote viewing that I've ever read!! It's some amazing insights into RV:

SRI suggested RV training procedure 1986
(80 pages)

It's 80 pages of some of the best information I've ever seen in print.

It's different than Swann's method, a little more free-form but with some well-defined structure as well. I REALLY like the way he breaks down the remote viewing action of perceiving into small periods of time.

I'm printing this up and keeping it for reference!
Don

 

[PJ]

Gary is well known currently in the lab world. He is just very seldom named... on purpose. FYI.

 

[bill161]

See

Posted: 12.8.2005 - Daz

Then about 10 down

NEW SRI suggested RV training procedure 1986
(80 pages)
2.6 mb .pdf file - right click to 'save as' OR it will just open!

Over all it's a little more than a third of the way down.

Regards

 

[Gene_Smith]

Gary is well known currently in the lab world. He is just very seldom named... on purpose. FYI.

Sounds like another fascinating candidate for a chat room interview.

Gene

 

[daz]

Here the link...

daz

http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/stargate/12.8.05/SRI%201986%20suggested%20Rv%20training%20procedure.pdf

 

[PJ]

It's worth remembering Larry that the majority of Swann's method is "creatively compiled"--from some of the major components such as ideograms (which he certainly didn't invent) to the less obvious issues (such as data-sequence)--one of the actual strengths of CRV is that it borrows from a collection of existing and well-known ideas and practices.

The main argument to formal methods is that you can parse out and use many of these tools and ideas (and many do sometimes without even being aware they are in methods, or sometimes coming upon them accidentally as part of practice) without the whole packaging of the rest of the method to go with it.

In any case, I believe more than just two of the lab-level psychics made at least some attempt to devise and record a methodology or a start on one. If we can ever talk Dr. May into coming back into chat, we could ask him about that Langford method and if it was studied etc.

PJ

 

[wizopeva]

SInce I've taken Lyn B's training, these ideas aren't as new as they may be for those who haven't take formal training. Still, there are some aspects that he still uses and others than he doesn't. Seems like the emphasis on getting a first impression and then right away taking a big break is not there so much now, for instance. There is however a lot of explanation in this doc of the idea behind interpretative overlay (which I think later came to be called analytic overlay or AOL) and how one might understand and manage it.

Other stuff, check out pages 71, 72, and 73 to see their suggested training schedual and info on learning curves in rv and how often you might want to view.

Page 74 has a bit of idea about considering how and WHAT to reinforce when a viewer performs. I think PJ talked a bit some weeks back on the galleries board about the issue of 'novices' reinforcing each other's perfomance and some potential dangers and advantages of such.

Pages 19 and 27 discuss some previous methods and hint vaguely on why this 'new' method (that looks like an early form of CRV) might be better. Page 27 hints and some earlier viewers that did or did not give statistifcally significant results. I saw some hints of this last one in another one of the docs that I will try to dig up later today in order to compare and contrast.

However, it should be kept in mind that this particular doc seems to be based mostly on anecdotal evidence. No rresearch and very few stats are included and the author even emphasizes that strongly. Seems like they were jusst starting to formulate a basic working plan for potential training techniques. I am guessing they probably had a certain motivation to show to the higher ups that they were making progress and learning stuff so some of this stuff may well have been a tad overstated. It will be interesting to see if they change course at all in any docs from later dates. Anyway, I still have a lot of reading to do so these are just some preliminary impresssions of mine.
-E

 

[Don_Williams]

Regarding timelines and the development of methods...Bear in mind that Harary, Hammid, and Langford were all either kicked out of Swann's project or left of their own accord when he pitched one of his infamous fits in 1982.

It all blew up because all the other remote viewers didn't like Swann's method and Swann got angry about it. Harary and Hammid wanted their own project, seperate from Swann's. Targ was in support of this. Langford wrote a memo in support of those two and against Swann.

So Swann's method was in development and use well before Langford's training method we're talking about here, which was in 1986. It sounds like Swann had Nance and Cowart recruited as trainees for his method because no one else at SRI who was already operating as remote viewers agreed with his methods.

*NOTE* The above is all according to "Remote Viewers" by Schnabel and alittle bit from McMoneagle's "The Stargate Chronicles". I doubt Swann would agree with this interpretation of what happened. The important thing is that Langford's method came years after Swann's.

I see a lot of original ideas in Langford's writings (for the time, especially). But some is the same, the ideas of consistent symbology, for example. Langford's method is much closer to the average remote viewing experience imo than Swann's approach. It's also much less pedantic, more allowing of individual expression. I think he calls "interpretative overlay" that - as opposed to analytical overlay - because that's what he sees it as. I also think his term is probably closer to reality than "analytical" is because the mind will interpret at such subliminal levels that we can only surmise analysis has taken place. It seems a bit more obvious that interpretation has to me.

Also, I think this is a different approach. It's almost certainly not an early form of CRV, from the timeline alone. And given the personality problems, I wonder if Swann would have allowed an independent contractor (langford) to posit changes in HIS method, especially 4 years later. lol.

I believe in most places, Langford has taken a slightly different tack than Swann. He absolutely describes the internal experience of remote viewing better, finding no need to create imaginary organs or processes to explain psi (Swann invented the "psychic core", named many different "cognitive filters", came up with "cognitrons" and the use of "cognates", etc.). Granted, describing and trying to suggest how we perceive and process psychic information is extremely difficult but did he HAVE to invent all these possibly completely imaginary brain organs and mind functions? lol!

Swann seems to have always "stayed with: the target until or unless a problem is encountered. Langford believes the mind naturally contacts the target in brief snippets and that this allows time to get it on paper. The basic rhythm of Langford's method really rings well for me. It's almost exactly how I usually work, what I just naturally started doing from the beginning. My experience with altered states, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, etc. doesn't agree with his though.
Don

 

[MoonDaughter]

I cannot access this file at all. Tried with Advanced Browser (my default) and then regular (and updated) IE. I also have the most resent version of Acrobat Reader. Has this file been taken down temporarily perhaps? Looking forward to reading it.

 

[Don_Williams]

Larry,
No, that shouldn't mess up the chronology of events. Langford was a remote viewer since the very, very early days at SRI. He worked with computers at SRI and it was found he had psi talent. I think the chronological order of psychics they used consistently went Swann, Price, Langford, Hammid, Harary....

But in 1982, Hammid and Harary left (Harary still did some RV work as a consultant, not sure about Hammid). But Langford stayed on working at SRI, just not under Swann's project. He still remote viewed as well though, I'm sure.

The reason I said this training method of Langford's most likely isn't directly related to Swann's CRV is because of the date of it (1986), because Langford describes himself as an independent consultant (meaning he wasn't working with Swann), because Langford clearly had problems with Swann's CRV, and because I see so many differences between Langford's approach and Ingo's.

However, I'm sure they both knew about all the observations that were being made about psi functioning during their time there. Certainly, they both had an understanding that the conscious mind caused problems, that raw impressions were most likely more accurate, of the importance of feedback to the developing viewer, and the realization that, in order to target a viewer, all that's needed is a way to set the target apart from the rest of reality (by a blind address, description, by viewer or tasker intent, by coordinates, by photo, etc.). I'm sure they both were taking the same observations into account.
Don

 

[wizopeva]

Touche, I freelyy admit that I am not up on the timeline stuff. It's become more interesting now only because I have documents instead of it mostlyl being a hesaidshesaid scenario which tends to make me yawn. However, it might be more interesting Don if you mention HOW you think it's different from Swann's technique. What were the original ideas? Why is it closer to the average viewer's experience (Swann's CRV seems to be a lot more regimented so it may be that is part of why it's easier to not fit into it, simply because it seems to assume a morre rigid order of data development.) You mention a bit of it but I am curious about the meat and potatoes of it and what you think. You have done a lot of viewing so that is why I am interested in your opinion. Myself, overall I have not major qualms with lanford's ideas, although I think much of it was conjecture. I also did like his term 'interpretive analysis' although since 'aol' is well known now, I'll stick with it for the sake of communication. I think I also tend to be the type that sees similarities and patterns across things more than I notice differences. SO for me, the ideas of Lanford did not seem terribly diff from Ingo's, although I felt they had different emphasis in some areas. I never learned of Ingo's 'cognates' and whatnot so maybe some of that theory from Ingo's original method got left by the wayside over time. However, I did find the use of Langford's term 'bit' to be interestingly indicative of a time when modeling complex systems after computers seemed to be very popular! ;-) (not that I necesarily disagree with the analogy, only that I remember how humans brains were 'computers' and the universe was a 'computer' etc etc..)
-E

Regarding timelines and the development of methods...Bear in mind that Harary, Hammid, and Langford were all either kicked out of Swann's project or left of their own accord when he pitched one of his infamous fits in 1982. Ê

It all blew up because all the other remote viewers didn't like Swann's method and Swann got angry about it. Harary and Hammid wanted their own project, seperate from Swann's. ÊTarg was in support of this. ÊLangford wrote a memo in support of those two and against Swann. Ê

So Swann's method was in development and use well before Langford's training method we're talking about here, which was in 1986. ÊIt sounds like Swann had Nance and Cowart recruited as trainees for his method because no one else at SRI who was already operating as remote viewers agreed with his methods. Ê

*NOTE* ÊThe above is all according to "Remote Viewers" by Schnabel and alittle bit from McMoneagle's "The Stargate Chronicles". ÊI doubt Swann would agree with this interpretation of what happened. ÊThe important thing is that Langford's method came years after Swann's.

I see a lot of original ideas in Langford's writings (for the time, especially). ÊBut some is the same, the ideas of consistent symbology, for example. ÊLangford's method is much closer to the average remote viewing experience imo than Swann's approach. ÊIt's also much less pedantic, more allowing of individual expression. ÊI think he calls "interpretative overlay" that - as opposed to analytical overlay - because that's what he sees it as. ÊI also think his term is probably closer to reality than "analytical" is because the mind will interpret at such subliminal levels that we can only surmise analysis has taken place. ÊIt seems a bit more obvious that interpretation has to me.

Also, I think this is a different approach. ÊIt's almost certainly not an early form of CRV, from the timeline alone. ÊAnd given the personality problems, I wonder if Swann would have allowed an independent contractor (langford) to posit changes in HIS method, especially 4 years later. lol. Ê

I believe in most places, Langford has taken a slightly different tack than Swann. ÊHe absolutely describes the internal experience of remote viewing better, finding no need to create imaginary organs or processes to explain psi (Swann invented the "psychic core", named many different "cognitive filters", came up with "cognitrons" and the use of "cognates", etc.). ÊGranted, describing and trying to suggest how we perceive and process psychic information is extremely difficult but did he HAVE to invent all these possibly completely imaginary brain organs and mind functions? lol! Ê

Swann seems to have always "stayed with: the target until or unless a problem is encountered. ÊLangford believes the mind naturally contacts the target in brief snippets and that this allows time to get it on paper. ÊThe basic rhythm of Langford's method really rings well for me. ÊIt's almost exactly how I usually work, what I just naturally started doing from the beginning. ÊMy experience with altered states, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, etc. doesn't agree with his though.
Don

 

[wizopeva]

BTW Larry, again I try to block out most of the politics. DId Ingo really officially 'copywrite' CRV? I only remember that Ed Dames/Psitech did do the paperwork (supposedly) to copyright their version which is TRV. I didn't think that legally one could copyright CRV because it it's technically public property. That's why PJ was able to post the CRV manual and why Daz can post all these docs. One could however copyright specific literature that one created on one's own as training materials.
-E

 

[wizopeva]

OK, I see. I think technically, he may be able to copyright his literature if he can make the claim that the writing is private property. HOwever, I don't think he can copyright the process itself. Or at least, as far as I know, he hasn't tried too. So that means anyone who learned the technique can teach it, write their own manuals, etc. They just have to write their own literature on it. Just like I can write a book on how to play tennis and copyright the book, but I can't copyright how other people play tennis. That's been my take on it anyway. Maybe PJ has a better understanding.
As for Lyn and his terminology change, Lyn has said he did that at Ingo's personal request, not because there was any legal reason that he had too. So for whatever reason, I don' tthink he did it out of fear of legal repercussions. For instance, Paul SMith still uses the original terminology.
-E

 

[Don_Williams]

Eva,
I wasn't up on the timeline either. But I immediately wondered myself what place this document might have in the scheme of things, so I grabbed Schnabel's book and checked. I thought it was a cruder form of CRV at first glance, too. But as I read further, I realized it's a slightly different philosophy than Ingo's, though they probably share more than they differ.

you wrote
"However, it might be more interesting Don if you mention HOW you think it's different from Swann's technique. What were the original ideas? Why is it closer to the average viewer's experience (Swann's CRV seems to be a lot more regimented so it may be that is part of why it's easier to not fit into it, simply because it seems to assume a morre rigid order of data development.)"

I noticed Langford doesn't rely on the subliminal creation of the idiogram (they actually seem to have different definitions for that word),whereas I've always thought it was extremely innovative on Swann's part to come up with that in the first place - sheer genius. Langford DOES include a set of species-wide symbols, though.

I also noticed Langford allows for more breaks, that the breaks should be there as part of the process. He mentions 5 to 30 seconds in one place but says breaks of several minutes can and do happen. This squares with my experience. That pacing seems right to me.

BTW, did I say the "average viewer's experience" earlier? I didn't mean to and I shouldn't have if I did. I can only go by my experience and what a few others have told me over the years. So I'm guessing, really.

I think you said it best, that in general Ingo's method iassumes a more rigid order of data development. His whole method seems much more rigid. I have a book which quotes alot from his "Natural ESP" and "Your Nostradamus Factor" and in both of them he is extremely thorough about every imaginable step in the psi process - which is good in a way - but he is forced to begin positing imaginary brain organs and tentative processes. And who knows? He MAY be right, lol. They just don't correspond with my experience.

One thing I really like about Langford's approach is that he doesn't insist that certain kinds of target-information (dimensionals, colors, relationships, etc.) must come in a specific prescribed order as Swann does, although he suggests they DO tend to come in basic pattern most of the time in the initial stages at least. But Langford instead describes how simple bits, as the session goes on, begin to be perceived as joined, making complex bits. And that long bits, which are complex but not really made up two simple ones, are perceived. So, he covers the overall change in the kinds of perceptions that occurs but leaves room for individuality, room that allows the remote viewer to express that spontaneous impression that is so often right on-target but doesn't fit within a rigid structure.

I think it's evident they were both learning from the same research. The similarities are there. And they are both awesome remote viewers. I had forgotten how good Langford was supposed to be until I read about him again in Schnabel's book, where the author wrote that Puthoff and Targ sometimes thought they had another Pat Price on their hands.
Don

 

[PJ]

I posted the CRV manual not because I was totally certain it was, if someone went through enough loops and back-study and government, free of copyright. I simply knew that the only source likely to sue had zero legit claim to it themselves, so I was in the clear. I called Ingo and asked him about it first. I took notes and put his comments in front with the manual, and let Paul write an intro for it so it wouldn't be in a void of sorts.

There have been many people who've learned CRV/TRV/etc. and made their own methods that are just variants on that, or things they've lifted from other systems, whether it's healing arts or Silva or Scientology or magick or stage-psi. Some openly claim the heritage, some deny they had training first and swear the coincidences in their methods is an incredible coincidence, and in the end, I don't think it matters anyway.

People view or they don't. In the end they will do what they choose. I figure all information, if free of cultism and free of charge, is an opportunity for a viewer to learn something, even if it's just learning what they don't like.

PJ

 

[wizopeva]

Yeah, that symbols thing was a bit confusing. I had assumed it was an early form of ideogram, but then he was talking about using it in the session and saying if you get a certain impression, then right the corresponding symbol (hopefully I am remembering that right). That was one part I didn't like. If I get an impression of a mountain, I do not wish to draw the symbol of a mountain, I wish to write the word (although of course a word is a symbol of sorts..) or draw the 'mountain' according to whatever form seems right for that session. Then again ideograms aren't my favorite par to fthe sessoin anyway. I think I heard that Ingo got the ideogram idea from an earlier rresearcher andjust incorporated it into rv. That part of Langford's method also reminded me vaguely of Ed Dames' method that all ideograms should be consistant across all individuals, which is not how LYn teaches it.

Lyn also does not teach that certain types of impressions MUST come before others, only that they usually do in most people for most sessions. However, after learning the basic stages, I was told sometimes you either skip or go backwards in the stages and that is OK. I don't know if that is Lyn's innovation, Ingo's original way, or just indicative of an overall softening and morphing of the Ingo system over time. Lyn also taught that you never edit anything from the session. So if you get an impression of any sort at any time, there is a place for writing it somewhere, even if it is not in the 'normal' order of things.

So the main thing I noticed aobut langford's method was the apparently bigger emphasis on breaks that are considerably longer than just a pencil drop. Hehe, I am so impatient that might drive me crazy, LOL! I did like his delving into the target acquistion process in detail though. I have sort of gathered a similar type of attitude over time that aols might be a sort of leap from similar impressions that are more simple in nature. Over time, I think the viewer is able to incorporate more and more simple descriptions into each aol, thus making each aol more an dmore likely to be closer and closer to the truth. Sometimes, the extrapolation is so good as to make for a correct guess and other times you may end up with close approximations like confusing a fax machine wiht a computer or whatever. But the overall process that resulted in the aol I think is still the same. Whereas, I noticed in one of the practice sessions of MOrehouse that the tend peg was at first judged to be aol when it wa thought to be wrong but later absolved from aol status when it was found that a tent was really there at the site. But in my way of thinking, more complex impressions, right or wronge, might be a sort of a mental interpretation of a simpler groups of impressions. (hmm, mayb ethat is how the mind thinks in normal life as well when I think about it..)
-E

 

[gary_langford]

My name is Gary Langford. I will read each of your postings and provide corrections and clarifications as are appropriate. I plan to do this only next week. Post your questions, I will try to answer.

 

[EricT]

Welcome to TKR Gary, and thanks for offering yourself up for clarifications and info. That is a very kind gesture indeed.

Eric

 

[gary_langford]

I am Gary Langford. Please post your questions and I will try to answer them next week. I will also provide comments on previous posts, as appropriate.

 

[Tunde]

I am Gary Langford. Please post your questions and I will try to answer them next week. I will also provide comments on previous posts, as appropriate.

Ill bite ;-)

Thanks for droping in Gary.
I just wanted to know if you have an updated
or final version of your RV method available for
publication or general study other than what was released
in the stargate Archives ?

Regards
Tunde